NOTE: References to page numbers of the English translation of the book on Montesquieu in respect of the cited passages and my comments below might be out by one or two or ? pages because of "last-minute" changes to the final PDF.
"Max Weber’s great truth, that our concepts should be so much the clearer and fixed, the more fluid reality is, applies not only to and for the understanding of social phenomena, but also for the interpretation of texts." [[Take That!!! RETARDS!!!]]
"... we could perhaps succeed in reconstructing the inner structure or at
least the latent coherence of Montesquieu’s magnum opus, which very often seems
to disintegrate into short-winded fragments, to lose itself in excursus and digressions, to peter out in details. And, all the same, an almost
continuous red thread, at times visible, at other times invisible, runs
through the whole of Montesquieu’s magnum opus. The first book defines
the object and subject matter of the work, i.e. the concept of law, and marks
out that part of the spectrum, to which the ensuing comments (and investigation
following) should be dedicated. Books II to VIII treat the examination of the
problem of the teaching of the state and of polities, first
of all in the narrower (Book II: the nature of the polity (constitution)) and
then in the wider sense (Books III-VIII: the fundamental principle of the polity
(constitution)), through which the bridge to sociological examination of themes
and topics is built (see the next section). Books IX to XXV investigate without
an apparent principle of classification and of order, the multifarious
material, institutional and ideological factors, which shape and form laws as
the legal articulation of the texture and composition of a society. In regard
to these factors, it is a matter of the defensive and aggressive waging of war
(Books IX and X), political freedom in the public and in the private realm
(Books XI and XII), the taxation system (Book XIII), climate (Book XIV-XVII),
the soil (Book XVIII), the customs, mores, manners and ways (modes) of living
(Books XIX-XXIII) as well as religion (Books XXIV-XXV). Here the red thread begins
to fray and be cut. After a general overview of the field of application of the
various kinds of law (Book XXVI), two books with historical analyses of Roman
and Frankish law follow, and then comes the renowned, famous Book XXIX with its
exhortations to the ideal lawgiver (lawmaker). Books XXX and XXXI constitute a
kind of appendix, which deals with a very topical historical and at the same
time political debate."
[[German ed. p. 20ff = English translation p. 17ff.. It is very interesting to reflect upon how Montesquieu felt that a moderate monarchy was something like the ideal polity, yet the Baron had enough sociological-historical and empirical sense to see that Asia "went with" despotism; the ancient world, a republic; whereas today's Ideologues-Cretins in the form of Zio-Neo-"Conservatives" or "Democrat Leftists" (just the other day, June 2018, the former half-white President of a particular Super Power called for the abolishing of "nation-states" inter alia because Europe is "too white" and "not black enough" - if you make Europe any blacker Fucking Imbecile, it is going to become an extension of Africa, and I think it's fair to say there's enough Africa already -, though I heard not that the abolishing of nation-states should include, or even better, should start with I?????), centred in the present-day Imperialist-like centre of the USA think, in their by now, very boring but still extremely retarded fashion, that the the whole world is "good for democracy", and that they should not only define what "democracy" is, against all concrete historical evidence, but also want to impose it on the whole world (!) - so, what in fact these absolute Idiots and Psychopaths are saying is that they want the whole world to Submit to "International Usury" and "International Corporations" which "just happen" to have GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE Tribal Ownership and Control - this is a very SICK state of affairs, and unfortunately it seems to me that if the Chinese, preferably along with the Russians, don't deal with them, we're all FUCKED, though even if the Chinese manage to deal with these Manifestations of SATAN, we are still and again FUCKED, because Chinese Dominance and or Ape Anomie are going to be BAD NEWS for what remains of the West - a LOSE-LOSE situation is really unfolding before our eyes... and that's what happens when the West lets PARASITES take over or at least wield GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE forms of Power (since c. 1850/1900 or c. 1945, but particularly since the End of the Cold War, depending on the Major Power in question)... What did you expect, ridiculous, fucking imbeciles?]] [[Let's not forget though, that Montesquieu (even though he did it for his own reasons pertaining to his own political preferences) and others of his time and their "equivalent" today, tend to fetishise the ancient republic, Rome, and or (Greek) democracy, life for the Fatherland and Honour rather than baser commerce/trade; patriotism, patriotic war, etc.. There is never any Utopia as real-world Praxis. The practical question always ultimately is, therefore, - unless someone deliberately seeks CHAOS or power for power's sake, etc. -, how can we realistically and pragmatically best achieve the highest possible level of social cohesion and social order, and the lowest possible level of Anomie (whilst surviving in an international environment or simply re: neighbours and or potential attackers, conquerors,...)?]]
[[READ THIS!!! A REAL LESSON IN POLITICAL SCIENCE!!!]]
"Already in 1734, Montesquieu expresses himself with warm words regarding the noble political mindset which inspired Rome and Sparta, and this warmth is never lost, although in his main work it is somewhat mitigated and subsides. In their ideal-typical apprehension, the ancient republics seem like magnificent, glorious political utopias, they are closed and manageable (limited in magnitude and population), (they appear to be) plain, moderate, austere and virtuous; their favourite occupation and activity is not (profitable) trade and all that promotes and reinforces self-interest (selfishness) and individualism, but politics and war as undertakings and ventures which nourish and strengthen the highest virtues of the citizen, i.e. readiness and willingness for self-sacrifice and love of the fatherland. This description was not inspired merely by Montesquieu’s intellectual(-spiritual) gallantry and generosity, nor did it stem wholly from the fad of the ancient cult, which reached its peak at the time of the French Revolution. In saying something malicious, but not unjustified or not without foundation, we could assert here that a non-democrat fearlessly and openly praises democracy because he does not regard it as a live threat (living danger) for his own political ideal, but as irrevocably dead (at least from an overall historical perspective) – and vis-à-vis the dead, one is as a rule fairly generous than vis-à-vis the living. Montesquieu does not glorify and exalt ancient democracy in order to be an accessory to the imposition of a modernised form of this same ancient democracy.
In actual fact, Western mass democracies of the 20th
century were formed under completely different
presuppositions and preconditions, i.e. the atomisation
of society, consumption and hedonism.
However, just like the frugal, undemanding and high-minded democracy, – that which kept and deterred Montesquieu from becoming a democrat himself, what he in comparison with democracy held to be historically viable, sustainable and capable of surviving –, also disappeared and vanished from historical reality; his moderate and liberal monarchy today seems just as obsolete as the ancient democracies were in his eyes."
[[When Montesquieu referred to manifoldness and heterogeneity, he meant the variety of having a balance between various social classes of one broadly defined (sub-)race or group of related (sub-)races and or ethne, and not the "diversity" or "pluralism" of Western mass democracies - which means that all the catchwords or catchphrases achieving prominence in concrete eras and places, are ultimately, empty of meaning, because they change their content, i.e. meaning, according to the power relations, values and tastes etc. of the dominant social formation in any given era during the course of history (see German ed. pp. 25-26 = pp. 23 or 23-24 of the English translation)]]
[[THIS PASSAGE IS ABSOLUTELY STUNNING!!! - IN THE CASE OF WESTERN MASS DEMOCRACY, I'D SAY THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE IS HEDONISM (based on ATOMISATION, CONSUMPTION) AND ONCE SOCIETY INCL. AS POLITY CHANGES COURSE, THAT PRINCIPLE, ALONG WITH ATTENDANT LAWS ETC., WILL CHANGE. AT THIS STAGE (2018), IT SEEMS THAT FEAR IS MAKING A COMEBACK IN THE WEST, AS WE MOVE TO "SOFTER" OR "HARDER" FORMS OF DESPOTISM, COMBINED WITH THE AFORESAID HEDONISM, INCL. IN LIGHT OF GENERALISED, INCREASING ANOMIE AND THE (LIKELY? TO BE CONTINUED?) (RELATIVE) RISE OF CHINA...]]
"The fundamental principle of a polity, as Montesquieu
understands it, fuses the socially determinative ethos
and the political kind of acting with each
other. The constitution, founding and exercising of political authority as
dominance can neither be explained by divine goals, nor by the mechanisms of naked violence. By distancing himself
from Bossuet, Montesquieu, without wanting to identify with Machiavelli, goes on
a search for the moral and mental legitimation factors of polities, in order to come via the question of
the legitimation of authority as dominance, to the question of the sociology of
authority as dominance. The
sociological investigation of authority as dominance makes it clear that not even a despotism,
whose fundamental principle is fear, can be propped up by the pure and incessant exercising of violence. Violence, in the
narrower physical sense of the word, is as a rule exercised either preventively
(where the suspicion of resistance or rebellion exists)
or repressively (where resistance or rebellion actually takes place); violence turns, in other words, as a matter of fact and
in itself, against those who feel no fear and that is why they do not
want to be subjugated. Fear paralyses souls, it makes, therefore, resistance
impossible and the incessant or massive exercising of violence superfluous; it
is not a matter here of the concrete fear from a concrete cause, but of the diffuse and vague fear, which day and night bites at and
into the heart of society, and soaks its
entire life and all its manifestations. From this perspective, the ethical
(problem) is not at the centre of attention, but the sociological question is
posed: how must a society be constituted (composed) so that its mode of functioning,
as it can be described empirically, is based on the principle of fear? What threads do
the institutions of the polity connect with the
behaviour of the citizens? The same questions are posed with regard to both
other main or basic types of polities, although their fundamental
principles differ essentially from fear: in a monarchy, the feeling of honour
rules and dominates, in a republic, virtue (rules and dominates). Montesquieu
says, incidentally, expressly (III, 7, cf. V, 19), that honour and virtue function
in his analysis as political-social, not as ethical magnitudes. The virtue of the republican citizen does not coincide with the following of the
commands of individual morality, but it develops in the public sphere; honour
can, for its part, even be directly in contradiction with individual morality, since honour is nourished by ambition and the wish for social
recognition: but precisely these (i.e. the said ambition and wish
for social recognition) drive the aristocracy to resistance
against the arbitrariness or the despotic proclivities of the monarch.
In the language of Marxist sociology,
we could therefore say that the fundamental principle of a polity is its “ideology”, as this is crystallised in forms of social-political
behaviour and in corresponding psychical positionings and dispositions, which
are important and crucial for the mode of functioning of the polity concerned. The fact that the collapse of a polity is due almost always to the degeneration of its fundamental principle (VIII,
I), can easily be explained if we think about the most, i.e. very wide extent
and range of this fundamental principle. Both the upbringing and education of the
citizens,
as well as that sector of legislation which directly
regulates social living together, that is, civil and criminal law(s) (IV-VII), are under the influence of this fundamental principle. In short, the concept of the principle of the polity theoretically enables the apprehension of society as
a coherent whole, whose parts are connected to and with one another, determine
one another and depend on one another."
[[Very informative reference is made to the development of Montesquieu's thought regarding the spirit of the laws and a multi-causal view of societies (p. 30ff. German ed. = p. 38ff. Greek ed. = p. 27 or 28ff. of the English translation) - and thereafter, inter alia, the distinction between the normative concerns of the "political philosopher" and the sociological impetus towards providing objective, concrete - based on empirical reality-, explanations and aetiologies, comes to the fore (incl. the theoretical handling of empirical reality in such a way so as to constitute ideal types in the sense of modern sociology [[cf. Ferguson, Clausewitz, et al. in the development and or indication of modern sociology]]) = ABSOLUTELY COMPELLING DISCUSSION ON THE RISE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE IN THE HISTORY OF IDEAS, incl. reference to physiology/biology, nature and the environment, and social-political institutions, all of which are at play in "the great debates" today, as well as in the propaganda and outright lies spurted and vomited out constantly by all sides, but especially the disgusting (subjectively seen, of course), GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY, tribally-controlled Mass Media and "Universities"!!!]]
[[The development of the modern sociological ideal type, first clearly seen in Montesquieu, but also (indirectly) used by Clausewitz about a century later (see Theory of War - Summary Notes), before reaching full maturation in Weber about another century later...]]
"The isolated data constitute in themselves not experience (= the empirically given as the first, gross concept of experience), but merely the raw material, and they have no interrelation, consistency and coherence, that is, no meaning, if they are not organised around fixed, steady, firm and stable ideational axes, and on the basis of theoretical principles, from which, as Montesquieu writes with virtually arrogantly sounding methodological self-confidence in the Prologue of L’Esprit, the individual historical cases seem to stem, spring and result automatically. The theoretical principles and the empirical data reciprocally overlap with, interweave with, pervade, one another, and in this to and fro, back and forth, ideal types are formed and arise. These ideal types do not, of course, contain “reality” in its unending great variety, diversity and multiformity, and eternal mobility, but they synopsise the only possible picture or image which science can make of reality – i.e., they bring out, underline and emphasise certain decisive features, and then make use of these same features as yardsticks of thought (or: as measures and criteria); not always convergence with these said ideal types, but possibly still more often divergence from them, indicates the scientific value, importance and status of the individual empirical data (or: sets the tone for reality on each and every respective occasion). Montesquieu knows that his types do not render reality as it is, but as it ought to be (e.g. III, 11); this nevertheless does not shake his belief in their cognitive necessity."
From the Greek text (p. 42), and not included in the German book!!! Combine this with the multiple ontological levels discussed in The Political and Man, and now you have a solid basis for (potentially) proceeding as a scientist, and not an Ideologue-Idiot-Clown-Monkey, in the social sciences...
"In actual fact, the typological reconstruction
of every
experience (piece of empirical evidence) is – for
multiple, anthropological
and logical, reasons –
inevitable, and whoever does not understand that has
not
at all begun to learn the alphabet of science."
"Accordingly, the tasks of political theory seem
to fall apart, i.e. we distinguish two different conceptions of politics, in
the sense of political theory: on the one hand, political theory sets about
understanding political praxis by its (i.e. political praxis) being
put in order in a social-historical framework which interrelates with each and
every respective form of polity; on the other hand, political
theory puts forward practical maxims with a universal claim,
whether they now are maximes de prudence or ethical-normative maxims. From a number of points of view,
it becomes manifest that the attempted marriage
of the teaching of the state and of polities, and,
sociology, with each other, generates friction(s) and tensions, ambivalence(s)
and vacillations. Through and within all these stretch, run and act, again, the
fundamental contrast and opposition between causal and normative consideration,
a contrast and opposition whose origin and logic we shall now deal with and
examine."
WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T
MISS Ch. III, Sec. 1 (p. 38ff. of the English translation)!!! IT INCLUDES A DISCUSSION OF IS AND OUGHT WHICH EXPOSES ALL SOCIETIES, incl. today's, AND THE LOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL BASIS FOR THEIR DOMINANT IDEOLOGY, ETHICS etc..
[[Chapter III, Section 3 deals with matters of causality incl. in relation to the kingdom of necessity and the kingdom of freedom, which constitute a kind of X-ray of ALL fundamental political behaviour, with particular emphasis on the nexus between power and ideology/ ethics. There is some truly incredible analysis which gets to the heart of the political, and is absolutely essential reading for any (would-be) political or legal "scientist". - And correct me if I'm wrong, but I can see the (albeit very rudimentary and crude) origins of modern geopolitics in Montesquieu's thoughts on climate and geography, incl. in relation to the general state of a population and the most common type(s) of governance for particular regions and or peoples, as well as more than implying that any scheme of a universalistic nature is always going to be ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT (cf. "globalisation" really just being about planetarisation and or a matter of managing (the potentially exponentially increasing) levels of relative CHAOS. P.K. though does not say so - he just does what he has to do, and leaves it to us "to figure it out")...]] [[Particularly hilarious is the thought that whereas Montesquieu referred to the Legislator trying to make something out of sluggish people from warmer climates, today we could refer to various Satanic, subjectively seen of course, Globalist Animals, wanting to turn Peoples with historical, collective identities into Atomised Zombie Robots, whilst the Satanic Circus Monkey People are allowed to have a strong historical-collective Identity, and relatively pure, if and when possible, nation-state, etc.,... - HOW VERY FUCKING CONVENIENT, DISGUSTING ANIMALS!!! (German text, pp. 51-52; English, pp. 52-53). They are so fucking SICK - IT really is SICKENING...]] [[Another way of looking at matters (and assuming God is Dead and Out of the Picture) is to put it this way: if Nature does not mechanically determine all human behaviour, and if values and norms are man-made and not the product of Nature, then who is to say what the "correct" values and norms should be? A: He who is relatively more Powerful... = it's always ultimately a question of relations and interactions of forms of power "on top of" and "within" Nature...]]
[[This might upset some of our Ideologue "Friends" (HAHAHAHAHA!!!):]]
"However, obviously not all things have the same
nature, and that is why the general validity of law
(in the general
epistemological sense of the word
“law”) is not equivalent to the ontological identity of
everything with everything; the problem lies
precisely
in finding out how the universal application of
epistemology can be
reconciled with each and every
respective different ontological quality."
[[The implication of p. 63 (German text) and pp. 65-66 of the English translation is that race as scientifically observable fact exists, imbeciles (and if we ponder The Political and Man, we could add that race exists at one level of analysis as biological-social-human fact, and at other levels of analysis, we can differentiate not only between races, but also between other groups, such as tribes, ethne, nations, classes, sexes/"genders" or kinds of "mental illness", etc., depending on of course how these categories are defined and in relation to what, which contexts of analysis, etc. on each and every respective concrete occasion of analysis). How retarded (and or terrified or terrorised or simply lobotomised and or "EVIL") are nearly most in Academia. VERY, VERY, VERY RETARDED. The fact is that in the space of about 5-10 decades, the West went from Crude Anti-Black/Yellow etc. Racism, to Crude Anti-White Racism, and in both instances, was, scientifically and generally seen, WRONG. It is not coincidental that the ideological transition was accompanied by a tangible correlation of forces transition at the level of international affairs, and now as the West is Down and perhaps also Out, it is literally SPINNING TOTALLY OUT OF CONTROL. Well done "Chosen Ones"! Well done RETARDS!!!]]
"Although Montesquieu highlights or even puts forward in advance, at times these, at other times those, “physical” or “moral” causes, he does not reach up to where e.g. historical materialism got to, by accepting, albeit only “in the final analysis”, the primacy of the economic factor. One could or should (to one’s benefit) in fact salute or greet this in fact as a sober theoretical stance, which mistrusts and suspects all schematisations and likes to remain constantly open vis-à-vis the innumerable forms and possibilities of concrete social-historical reality. However:..."
[[READ about Montesquieu contradicting himself re: the state of nature/natural state, wars, natural law and Hobbes, pp. 67-69 German text = pp. 70-71 English translation!!!]]
"Thus, values and causes run into one another or intersect only sporadically and temporarily, and although here and there moral and political advances (forms and kinds of progress) are noted and recorded, general and united progress is not to be seen anywhere, just as nowhere the fear of a comprehensive and unstoppable, inexorable decadence is expressed; history remains open, fragmentary, fluctuating/vacillating and inconstant, fickle."
[[Parallels with today, perchance? HAHAHAHAHA!!! (Don't miss pp. 71ff. of the German text = p.74ff. of the English translation)]] "The discomfort and unease of Enlightenment philosophers and thinkers was not fed, nourished and nurtured merely by the assurances of the prologue that The Spirit of the Laws does not want in any way to call into doubt the status quo; such assurances were often in difficult times given for tactical reasons, and in themselves did not count for much – either in the eyes of friends or in the eyes of foes. However, Montesquieu’s scientific programme and its systematic carrying out gave rise to a deeper unrest. The social critique of the Enlightenment used as its weapons, general ethical and natural-law principles, so that the relativisation of these same principles through sociological analysis amounted to an ideological disarming of the opponents of the ancien régime...." [[SO, mutatis mutandis, as far as today is concerned,... NO WONDER P.K's WORK HAS ABSOLUTELY NO HOPE IN ANY ERA OF ACHIEVING RELATIVELY WIDE CIRCULATION... HAHAHAHAHA!!!]]
[[The separation of powers is explained social-politically in historical (and textual) context in a manner hitherto unknown in the history of scholarship, German text p. 75ff. = English translation, p. 78ff..]]
Also included in P.K.'s exquisite, and much-loved short book, is discussion of Montesquieu, the separation of powers, and: Locke (German, p. 80ff. = English, p. 84ff); Bolingbroke, Walpole, the mixed polity/constitution; the balanced polity; moderation; equilibrium; the system of checks and balances,...
[[THERE IS NO NECESSARY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN "DEMOCRACY" AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS, FUCKING RETARDS!!!]]
"Moderation, this highest virtue and this highest aim of the legislator (XXIX, 4), is hence as a political principle superior to the criteria on the basis of which the typology of polities are constructed. Moderation can be realised in all polities (as in all polities the separation and the equilibrium of powers can be realised too), and moderation’s existence indicates the common contrast and opposition of all such polities featuring moderation, to despotism, just as a lack of moderation makes it clear that all polities run the risk and are exposed to the danger of despotism." [[Ditto: re: FREEDOM!!! - at least in Montesquieu's view... provided there is social heterogeneity and e.g. feudal privileges are defended and protected = a society with clear (legal) class and other caste/social strata distinctions, and gross (from the present-day Western mass-democratic point of view) formal-legal social inequality... = concepts such as "freedom", just like all the various "-isms" and "-phobias", can be charged/loaded with content in any way the interpreter of the concept wants to do so, and in the public domain in our Age/Era/Epoch, if "the dominant interpreter" "just happens" to incl. GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE numbers of a particular group in tandem with Protestants and other groups such as "Leftists" and "(Neo-)Conservatives" - GOD SAVE US... this is why, or at least one of the primary reasons why, the WEST is almost certainly effectively FINISHED (at least it seems that way, c. 2018)... loss of Identity = loss of Power = loss of Will to Live... just as the (Western) European Aristocracies faded out of history in a process beginning at least a century or two before Montesquieu's life...]]
[[What the fuck could this mean re: USA, Australia, France, UK, (Germany),... c. (1850-)1900(-1940)-present?!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!]]
"Wherever there are already privileges, there freedom
lies in their (i.e. the privileges’) maintenance and preservation, whereas
their violent (forced) abolition destroys freedom; wherever such privileges do
not exist, there their (i.e. privileges’) one-sided establishment does harm to
and violates freedom."
[[Montesquieu views freedom as having absolutely nothing to do with legal equality (even though as a matter of natural law or natural equality all men are "equal", etc.), political freedom, universal suffrage, etc.,... and that freedom is about the security and safety of the "people" - who do not in the least coincide with the sum of the population - to enjoy their property rights, bodily integrity, etc.. Nor does freedom include a right to engage in politics (which even in a democracy means, owning property, etc.). For Montesquieu, freedom is about civil, not political rights. If freedom is submission to the law, and if the law protects the personal belongings of every individual [[wife, children, servants, etc. belong to the Householder/ Man of the House etc.]], then Montesquieu's position is roughly the same as Hobbes's = KEY for FREEDOM = a sense of safety and security. (+ all men born equal according to "natural law" DOES NOT mean that all men should have the same political rights (which are commensurate with property ownership - even in a democracy), etc..)]] [[I - OBVIOUSLY NOT P.K. - would also add that Montesquieu's intense fears of democracy degenerating into tyranny are HIGHLY RELEVANT for Western mass democracies TODAY which have totally abandoned the LONG-TERM, VITAL CIVILISATIONAL-CULTURAL IMPORTANCE OF RELATIVELY STRONG RACIAL/ ETHNOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS RELATIVE HOMOGENEITY (of course, it does not have to be absolute homogeneity, but a 50+%, or better, 70+% or 90+% basis seems to be - though is by no means theoretically - absolutely ESSENTIAL),... IN ORDER, INTER ALIA, FOR A DISGUSTING - subjectively seen as a matter of Taste, of course - TINY MINORITY GROUP (i.e. its ELITES) TO PLAY EVIL, "SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY" DIVIDE AND RULE GAMES OF POWER PROJECTION AND IMPOSITION - THIS IS VERY SICK STUFF, AND THE WEST WILL PROBABLY FALL SOONER (WITHIN A FEW DECADES OR A CENTURY OR SO, RATHER THAN LATER (e.g. AFTER 500 or 1000 years))... THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LET REVOLTING PARASITES (i.e. their ELITES) - subjectively seen as a matter of Taste, of course - TAKE GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE CONTROL. AND WE AND OUR OFFSPRING and DESCENDANTS (if any) SHALL PAY A VERY HEAVY PRICE INDEED... AND THE FIRST PORT OF CALL IS INCREASING DESPOTISM - TO COMBAT THE INCREASING ANOMIE AND CHAOS - IN THE (ONCE UPON A TIME) WEST...]] [[For Montesquieu (German text, p. 90 = English translation, p. 96), liberal notions of full legal equality for everyone and the attendant homogenisation, simplification and generalisation of society by, inter alia, abolishing legally enshrined feudal privileges etc., would be considered "despotism", let alone in the case of social democracy or mass democracy where all people have at least some kind of access to a historically unheard-of abundance of goods, which - if I may say so, and not P.K. - Montesquieu probably would or could have seen as some kind of mixed "tyranny and or (secret society) oligarchy and or ochlocracy" of the worst, nightmarish kind...]]
[[Sounds familiar? No wonder P.K. and I say - "No Public Appearances - EVER"!!!]]
"Over and above that, it can be said that Montesquieu, despite his, in practice, non-binding praise for the ancient republican mindset, prefers inconspicuous, unobtrusive personal independence to the noise, din, kerfuffle of public militancy, and has the feeling or sense that where the whole of life becomes absorbed in political commitment and exertion, it becomes intellectually more narrow-minded rather than rich, extensive, varied, full."
[[Before getting "excited" about C. Schmitt, you should reflect upon Bodin and Hobbes and the establishment of European state sovereignties from the 15th to the 18th centuries against Feudal Law, Rights and Privileges,... (p. 90ff. German text = p. 96ff. of the English translation). Cf. p. 50ff. of the German = English text, p. 50ff., where the Legislator as deus ex machina implies that the Decider of the Decision cannot be some "authentic" Schmittian-Heideggerian ideal... since all positions ultimately are of an irrational decision, starting point... out of Chaos, and not a priori... (which also knocks out Kant and all the Ethicist-Pontificating "professors" and other assorted smart-arses, who know how to "save the world", "if only you'd just listen"... power-hungry, "sophisticated and nuanced" ANIMALS!!!...)... also ponder the third (human) ontological level of positive law as compared to natural law (God), the law of nature (inorganic Nature) (pp. 56-57 (German) = pp. 58-59 (English)) in order to gain a better understanding of the emergence of decisionism in the 19th century in the context of the history of ideas of the 17th and 18th centuries, and earlier...]]
[[It is quite clear from the excerpt below that political concepts such as "despotism", and in other contexts, "racism" etc., can be filled with all sorts of (opposing) content, mean different things to different people and groups, and subsequently be weaponised in the political sphere...]]
"Nonetheless, the content-related shift becomes clear if we ponder that the combination of that demand of the separation of powers with the ideal of the mixed polity, as is alluded to in Montesquieu, was henceforth no longer possible. Because in accordance with the liberal and democratic perception, the monarchical, the aristocratic and the democratic components could in fact no longer have an effect together inside of the legislature on equal terms. Both of the former (i.e. the monarchical and aristocratic components) had to be excluded, and indeed not merely in the sense that they were not allowed to be politically activated anymore and were kept outside, but much more radically: the legislature was supposed to now use its sovereign will to influence the texture of society and or for the reshaping (remoulding) of society, that is, it was supposed to abolish (at least) legal and political inequalities, and through that homogenise the social body all across the board. The internal logic of the liberal or democratic constitution desired and or demanded therefore a republic or a merely decorative monarchy and the indivisible sovereignty of a legislature, which emerged from a legally and politically, if not in fact socially, homogeneous people. It is to be supposed or guessed with a fair bit of certainty that Montesquieu, not differently to many an extreme or moderate conservative in the year 1789, would have seen and interpreted such a development as the victory of the “despotism of the many”, which in his eyes was not much better than the despotism of the one [[ruler/ despot]]."
"... These organs were not formed from the social correlation of forces, but they represent and constitute legal fictions which seemingly stand above social and historical given (actual) facts, so that the impression comes into being that this model could find application in all countries and in all societies. A one-sided juristic and legal formalism and a naive trust in the possibilities of the panacea-like effect of constitutional regulations and constitutional technique have thus characterised the political thought of liberalism since its inception, especially in its reference and connection to the mythology of the separation of powers. Liberal praxis has of course been far less naive.
Seen in terms of the history of ideas, the separation of powers constituted, at any rate, a construction, which the more mythological it was, the more it estranged and distanced itself from Montesquieu’s sociological way of looking at things, in order to be involved and get tangled up in the (over-)subtleties, nit-picking, hair-splitting and pedantry of liberal juristic, legal formalism...."
"For good or ill, the lexicographical concept(ual meaning) of terms differs, almost always, from the historical (concept(ual meaning)) – and scientific analysis would be superfluous to a great extent if perchance the two coincided. All the same, the ascertainment of the historical fertility of the theory regarding the separation of powers, can be uninhibitedly reconciled with the ascertainment that such a separation has, in the true sense of the word, never and nowhere become reality, above all not where a “system of checks and balances” was meant:..."
"The existing “checks and balances” – if they exist – are due much more to the express or tacit rules of the (political party) game, which guide the co-existence of parties, associations, organisations, unions etc. on the indispensable basis of an undisturbed reproduction of the material preconditions of the social system, than to general and abstract institutional and constitutional determinations or regulations and adjustments. Still more than in the golden age of bourgeois liberalism, the separation of powers constitutes in the epoch of mass democracy a mythologem, a point of contention and a flexible weapon. The struggle and osmosis of parties and associations etc. against the background of an atomised society are of course phenomena which can hardly be apprehended by Montesquieu’s categories. And yet reading and studying him always remains, even in this respect, instructive. Because the essential in the present-day becoming and events is inferred or revealed often only through comparison with the past."
